Special Leave Petitions Under Article 136

Article 136 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court a discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed by any court or tribunal in India, except courts and tribunals under laws relating to the Armed Forces. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) is not an appeal as of right: it is a request asking the Court to allow an appeal, and the Court grants it only in exceptional cases. The filing rules sit in Orders XXI (civil) and XXII (criminal) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for constitutional law and civil procedure papers, and for anyone who has lost a case in the Madras High Court and keeps hearing the phrase "we will go to the Supreme Court". Knowing what an SLP really is helps you answer exam questions correctly and keeps clients and families realistic about their chances.

What does Article 136 actually say?

Clause (1) opens with a non obstante phrase ("Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter") and says the Supreme Court "may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal" from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. Clause (2) carves out one exception: it does not apply to courts or tribunals constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Three words do most of the work in an exam answer:

• "discretion": nobody has a right to leave;
• "any": the order need not be final, and it can come from a tribunal, not only a court;
• "special": the power is reserved for cases that are out of the ordinary.

How is an SLP different from an ordinary appeal?

Ordinary appeals to the Supreme Court travel through Articles 132 to 134, usually on a certificate from the High Court. Article 134A, inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, requires the High Court to decide whether to grant such a certificate on an oral application by the aggrieved party, as soon as may be after the judgment. If the certificate is refused, or if no certificate route exists, the party turns to Article 136.

In N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss (decided 12 February 2007), the Supreme Court, relying on Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004), said Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal and only confers a right to file an application seeking leave. The Court added that Article 136 "was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section 100 CPC" and that the power is to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases.

Which leading cases should every student know?

1. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169: one of the Court's earliest rulings on Article 136. As summarised in N. Suriyakala, it holds that the wide discretionary power "is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only" and that "a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special leave". This is still the starting point for the "when will leave be granted" question.
2. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000): decided on 19 July 2000 by a three-judge bench, this case holds that the jurisdiction under Article 136 "is divisible into two stages". Until leave is granted, the matter is only a petition for leave. Once leave is granted, it becomes an appeal. An order refusing leave "does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge", so the doctrine of merger does not apply. If leave is granted and the appeal is decided, the High Court order merges into the Supreme Court decision.
3. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (2019): on 1 March 2019 a three-judge bench held that Kunhayammed states the correct law. A dismissal of an SLP in limine does not, by itself, stop a party from seeking review in the High Court.

For the Madras High Court, the practical point is simple: a litigant from Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli or Madurai who loses in the Madras High Court or its Madurai Bench, and gets no certificate under Article 134A, will usually be looking at an SLP. I have not cited a specific Madras High Court ruling on Article 136 here because I could not confirm one from a primary source; check the judgments portal before quoting one in an answer.

What are the time limits and filing rules?

The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 have been amended several times (the Court's rules page lists amendments notified in 2024 and 2025), so always read the current text on sci.gov.in. As reproduced in the rules:

• Civil SLP, Order XXI Rule 1: within 60 days from the date of the order refusing a certificate of fitness, and in any other case within 90 days from the date of the judgment or order. These periods are subject to Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so delay can be condoned for sufficient cause.
• Criminal SLP, Order XXII Rule 1: 60 days from the order refusing a certificate, 90 days in other cases not involving a death sentence, and 60 days in a case involving a sentence of death.
• Form and papers: a civil SLP is filed in Form No. 28 with a chronological list of dates, a certified copy of the impugned judgment, a supporting affidavit and a statement on whether any earlier SLP was filed against the same order.
• Surrender in criminal cases, Order XXII Rule 5: a petitioner sentenced to imprisonment must state whether he has surrendered and prove it with a certified copy of the surrender order or a certificate from the jail officer. A jail attestation of signatures on the vakalatnama is not enough. If he has not, the Registry will not accept the petition unless it comes with an application for exemption from surrendering.
• Caveat, Order XXI Rule 9: an SLP is ordinarily heard ex parte at the first stage. If the other side has lodged a caveat under Order XV Rule 2, notice of the hearing must go to the caveator. Where the petition is late and comes with a condonation application, the Court will not condone the delay without notice to the respondent.

Filing is now largely electronic through the Supreme Court's e-filing portals (SC-eFM 2.0 at efiling.sci.gov.in and the newer SC-eFM 3.0 at efiling3.sci.gov.in). Court fees and copying charges change, so I have not listed figures here; check the current schedule with the Registry or an Advocate-on-Record.

How does this apply after the new criminal laws?

Since 1 July 2024, criminal trials, bail and appeals run under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) instead of the CrPC and IPC. Article 136 itself has not changed. Suppose a student in Nagercoil follows a case where the Madurai Bench refuses bail under the BNSS: the remedy is still a criminal SLP under Article 136, filed under Order XXII and tested against the Pritam Singh standard.

How should you write about Article 136 in an exam?

1. Quote the core words of Article 136(1) and state the Armed Forces exception in clause (2).
2. Explain that it is a discretionary, residuary power and not a right of appeal (N. Suriyakala).
3. Set out the test for grant of leave (Pritam Singh).
4. Explain the two stages and the doctrine of merger (Kunhayammed, affirmed in Khoday Distilleries).
5. Add the procedure: time limits under Orders XXI and XXII and the surrender rule.
6. Close with a short critical comment, for example on the heavy SLP docket and the risk of the Court becoming a regular appellate forum.

A citizen who cannot afford counsel can ask about free legal aid; the college legal aid clinic can point you to the right legal services authority.

Sources

• Article 136, Constitution of India (Indian Kanoon): text of the provision.
• Supreme Court Rules (sci.gov.in): the 2013 Rules, the 2024 and 2025 amendment notifications and e-filing links.
• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000): judgment on the two stages of Article 136 and merger.
• N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss (2007): judgment on Article 136 as a discretionary power.
• Bar and Bench on Khoday Distilleries (2019): analysis of the three-judge bench ruling.
• Order XXI, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (AAP Tax Law reproduction): civil SLP time limits, Form No. 28 and the caveat rule. Check against the official text on sci.gov.in.
• Order XXII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (AAP Tax Law reproduction): criminal SLP time limits and the surrender rule.
• Article 134A (Constitution of India.net): text and history of the certificate provision.